Talk:List of oldest living men in the United States/@comment-44851562-20200112234812/@comment-44851562-20200124175015
Hi YouthfulC, I cannot help but feel disappointed that you firmly believe the "burden of proof" is on me. This I believe to be quite a lazy response, as the burden is really on anybody who wants to see the most all-encompassing dataset. If one is fascinated, as I am, with longevity claims, then surely they would agree it is upto everyone involved in documenting these instances of extreme longevity. As mentioned I am very much here to progress in broadening my knowledge on these cases and am by no means familiar with any formal protocol accessible to the general public for influencing additions to these lists. Therefore, I took this approach which, albeit quite informal, was still successful. This is not to undermine anyone's knowledge, but make factual observations about the credibility of what has been described as "crediblle" as part of the protocol for making additions. It is also about improving the representative value of this list as a dataset, which we have actually managed to improve. As you can imagine, extreme longevity is, by in large, a rarity and therefore making accurate additions is improving the significance of this list in understanding trends among those who have achieved extreme longevity. At the very least, when I pose a plausible instance, it is open for debate. However, I do expect others with the same vested interest in longevity claims to take responsibility for researching this in the most credible way, as opposed for waiting for it to be confirmed. Without looking into it then we are even just assuming the addition is credible without the background knowledge of that individual. I'm surprised to see how much discourse has been caused by this, when you would imagine people would find new and accurate additions as a positive thing. Sorry if my method was opposed to th formal protocol you all seem to be so heavily indoctrinated to, but the simple fact is, it was effective and worked. And that should be a triumph for anyone who wants to improve the representative value of the list. As far as I'm aware, in any institute or place where people share a vested interest, it is not expected that the burden of proof be on he who produced the theory. If people are collectively vested in the same goals, for example a team of scientists, then that entire group wouldn't turn round and say "we won't assist you in proving this theory" that would be hugely underproductive. If, for example, a player on a soccer team was fouled, and a player suggested there was a foul by the opposition player, the referee doesn't then say "the burden of proof is on you" he consults with his officials and then further consults the video technology. The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the collective to whom the problem concerns. Hence why I commented on here (a place for longevity enthusiasts) rather than taking autonomous action against the professional bodies that document the claims. That is just common sense and I hope you retract that statement as it really just singles out anybody who wants to contribute an idea but has no support. If everything was like that everything would be so much less productive and collaborative and we'd have even less Information than we have today. When we build on each others ideas then we are more capable of solidifying something meaningful. And let's be fair, it wasn't as though my suggestion for shapiro to be added was a blind guess or a dead end, it gave the basis for others to add to that theory to solidify the claim. I now subsequently have a better understanding of the AAA and the GRG. That is positive! Regards, Aaron McKenna, 17:50, January 24, 2020 (GMT)